12 Things Curiosity Forgot to Inspect & Some Concerns About NASA's Information Policy

Originally posted by jeep3r
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Of course, most of us here on ATS are 'just' conspiracists and not geologists, scientists etc. (although there are indeed some academics and knowledgable people around).

But independent of our level of education:
All the things we discussed and highlighted did stand out when compared to the rest. So one might want to ask: why publish TONS of images of apparently feature-less rocks and not some good close-ups of the stuff that creates big discussions? Even if it were 'just' to prove it's nothing but plain rocks ... but they didn't do us that favor and I really wonder why

edit on 14-7-2013 by jeep3r because: text

Well im a scientist, an environemtnal scientist, and i qualified as a geologist, never practiced professionally as a geo, but id know a great deal more than your average joe does about rock formation and weathering, ive seen a heap of things that look peculiar to say the least, but of course half the keyboard warriors here can easily dismiss any pictures they see as just rocks with all their vast experience identifying things they've no concept of, so good for them

This is something that is at the very least worth the time to investigate, i dont see how people can justify being so quick to dismiss it. And i think its safe to say their are probably answers available for some of our questions but we might not ever get to ehar them anytime soon, the pictures produced throught this Curiosity Trip have strengthened my faith even further that there is something going on there that we are not being told about. Everything from the images to the behavior of JPL in the media and public, with their ever changing stories and backtracking after the fact.

Originally posted by wildespace
Curiosity is up there to do science, not to enterntain the public with pictures of weird rocks.

They took time to photograph the 'face' on Mars a few years ago. Don't forget that NASA is funded by the public, so it's not unreasonable that they should make some attempt to answer the public's questions, even if the scientists themselves see little value in it.

What's more if they did take more interest in these kind of 'anomalies' then they may find that people get more interested in the mission as a whole. It would also provide a valuable 'debunking' exercise (assuming these are just rocks).

I don't see how looking at anything on Mars could be a waste of time, especially if it demonstrates unusual features. Are the scientists really so jaded that they won't inspect a rock that looks like a lizard because they already know everything there is to know about lizard-shaped rocks?

reply to post by wildespace

Great reply. I'd also add that what may look featureless and boring to you might provide valuable clues to scientists about martian environment and its geological past. Curiosity is up there to do science, not to enterntain the public with pictures of weird rocks. This thread smacks of ignorance.

Yet, any discovery of anything artificial on Mars...would blow any geological survey in to scientific obscurity. But I guess we don't want any of that...right?

If that Hugo "rock" in pic number 2 does not raise suspicion...than I'm sorry...you need to have your eyes checked mister.

And I sincerely doubt...that everybody at NASA is blind...but are most likely simply investigating on their own...and keeping a lid on it...whatever it may turn out to be....and most likely...the OP is right.

In this day of age...you would have to pretty naive to think the public is told the entire scope of the mission. It makes no sense to tell everything. As in most missions, there are always multiple objectives. If you think that they planned this mission just to take geo surveys and ignore anything else...sorry....no go at this conspiracy corner.

reply to post by jeep3r


its cool to believe, i believe in ET life. but honestly this stuff still just looks like rocks

every image from mars does. there is not 1 single clear cut image of an artificial or fossilized object that is so unmistakable to deny.

Its like the UFO phenomena. Now I believe in life elsewhere in the universe but why is every photo of a UFO so blurry and unclear we just cant make it out?

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
reply to post by jeep3r

 

its cool to believe, i believe in ET life. but honestly this stuff still just looks like rocks

every image from mars does. there is not 1 single clear cut image of an artificial or fossilized object that is so unmistakable to deny.

Its like the UFO phenomena. Now I believe in life elsewhere in the universe but why is every photo of a UFO so blurry and unclear we just cant make it out?

so, you're telling me that number 2 pic...looks like a plain ordinary rock ?

fine...

edit:

since it's all rocks out there...I'm challenging you or anyone...provide me any one rock on any curiosity pics or panoramas that looks even remotely similar...to this "plain old rock" in pic 2.

reply to post by jeep3r


WUNDERBAR HERR Jeep3r!!! Brilliant and neat Post!

Many people seem to miss some of your points. The "it's just rocks keyboard Warriors" are very confort with the official Status Quo and cannot at least consider something else.
They are much more confort then NASA itself. No one would need any upload "Clearance" for a "it's just rocks" "barren" landscape unless there were some remote possibility of something else turning up there.

"It's always just rocks" is such a poor and safe comment... Aff..

Is there any way that a person with the technological know how could intercept the rover transmission?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


thats just the thing, image #2 does look like a rock. Ok i see what your getting at with it being shaped like a lizard but thats all it is. a rock shaped like a lizard from that particular angle.

here is an earthly example of a rock shaped like a bear



im not debunking life on mars completely. Just saying these images (like all other mars image) look more like rocks that anything else and that there is yet to be a clear unmistakable image of life or artificial creations.

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

thats just the thing, image #2 does look like a rock. Ok i see what your getting at with it being shaped like a lizard but thats all it is. a rock shaped like a lizard from that particular angle.

here is an earthly example of a rock shaped like a bear



im not debunking life on mars completely. Just saying these images (like all other mars image) look more like rocks that anything else and that there is yet to be a clear unmistakable image of life or artificial creations.

pfff..interesting how you fail to see the obvious...whether by blindness or by some agenda. No, the shape is of no importance...rather...the obvious apparent metalic quality that sticks out like turd in a bowl of punch, from the rest of the environment.

edit:

for the record...I see no lizard...It was Arken's interpretation...that it resembles a lizard...honestly...I don't see it...but as I said...the shape is of no importance.

To me it...looks something static...not alive, metalic...like a part of some equipment of sorts.

4. NASA/JPL frequently stated that the MSL images are uploaded to the public archives. What they usually don't mention is that this process is not 'direct' or 'real-time' in nature. Of course, the science team gets the images first. And they need to approve them (after analysis) before they go into the public archives. In theory (and probably in practice, too) certain images can thus be held back indefinitely for the purpose of further investigation.

Your thread is excellent, S+F

Id like to say in regards to the above point you made that this has ALWAYS been a highly suspicious process from NASA since they started snapping spacy things.

What are they checking each imagine for? Making sure Obama's holiday beach pics didnt accidentally get mixed with a data transmission from Mars?....

Theres really no reason for it. When you think of how its all funded you might ask yourself, when funding a public project from public money for the general interest of the public and the world, why is it yet again the suits who pic the shots we want to see for us anyway?

Your suspicious mind is rightfully intrigued

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
I don't like "all I see is rocks" people...even if they are right...it shows a clear lack of imagination.

Yeah those pesky critics who don't like to fill in the blanks with imagination and fantasy. How can we prove they are not rocks if they wont pretend with us.

Anyway I think if those images were potentially alien they would not have been released. I think the op just demonstrates how easily a few odd rocks can be mistaken for animal remains, unless Nasa and the science communities in general are just ignoring the alien life.

Originally posted by voudon

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
I don't like "all I see is rocks" people...even if they are right...it shows a clear lack of imagination.

Yeah those pesky critics who don't like to fill in the blanks with imagination and fantasy. How can we prove they are not rocks if they wont pretend with us.

Anyway I think if those images were potentially alien they would not have been released. I think the op just demonstrates how easily a few odd rocks can be mistaken for animal remains, unless Nasa and the science communities in general are just ignoring the alien life.

edit on 15-7-2013 by voudon because: (no reason given)

This isn't about alien life...

It's about anomalies worth investigating...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


here is an example of a rock that has the shiny metallic characteristics you mentioned.



there are a number of other types of rock with similar attributes

i stand by my original statement that these images look like rocks and there is still no images from mars that are irrefutably not rocks. when I see an image that I can absolutely without any doubt say "thats not a rock" then I'll investigate

another really good thread that will die because of the trolls here on ATS

Coal/charcoal is very shiny and very metallic looking sometimes and thats extremely interesting on Mars!!! and not because it is actually metal!

dead trees are very interesting when they are on mars.

reply to post by smurfy


That money you speak of does not belong to the people.

Interesting thread, lots of pictures I have not seen and to the people that say "its just rocks" what geological or scientific evidence do you people have to prove that? Because as far as I am concerned you would need sample data to confirm that.

Nice collection you got there OP!

Some are so strange looking that you would think they would be examined more closely. But how do we know that they aren't being examined, and just not telling us?

A big reason I think they ignore these (at least publicly) is that they don't want to face criticism and ridicule from other scientists. I remember at one Curiosity briefing, someone from the press asked about one of the unusual objects, and one scientist on the panel joked about them "not looking for the loch ness monster" or something. So I guess they don't want to stick their "professional" necks out.

When we solve the problems of traveling to Mars and withstanding the radiation there, maybe we will send human astronauts. A human would pick up an unusual object and almost immediately tell if it was unusual or not. But even then, will they show us what the astronauts find?

Originally posted by LordAdef
reply to post by jeep3r

 

WUNDERBAR HERR Jeep3r!!! Brilliant and neat Post!

Many people seem to miss some of your points. The "it's just rocks keyboard Warriors" are very confort with the official Status Quo and cannot at least consider something else.

VIELEN DANK, LordAdef!

I already noticed that you're a regular visitor and contributor in these threads ... thanks for stopping by so frequently, that's highly appreciated!

As for the sceptics: it's always a bit of a shame if you get the typical 'one-liner' as a response, that's true. But as long as a real argument is provided, their view is - of course - welcome, too.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by jeep3r

 

That means that we should also not just question what JPL/NASA shows us or tells us.....but we should also question those that have this hard core belief that JPL/NASA is always lying to them.

So fair is fair.

Thanks, Eric. That's indeed a very balanced and fair comment that looks at all the parties and interests that are involved.

I don't know about others on here, but I would certainly be among the first to say: 'wait a minute, I might have been wrong ... the evidence is clearly out there and there's no use denying it!".

What amazes me, however, is the fact that these features - that should be interesting and which do look sufficiently distinctive - are deliberately not being analyzed more closely, so it seems. Moreover, it almost looks as though it's a systematic and intentional approach, like: those are the kind of formations we're definitely 'not' going to look at (officially). It's just a bit disturbung, even more so when also taking into account the other arguments of the OP.

Thanks again for your thoughful reply!

Originally posted by BeReasonable

 

Well im a scientist, an environemtnal scientist, and i qualified as a geologist, never practiced professionally as a geo, but id know a great deal more than your average joe does about rock formation and weathering, ive seen a heap of things that look peculiar to say the least, but of course half the keyboard warriors here can easily dismiss any pictures they see as just rocks with all their vast experience identifying things they've no concept of, so good for them

This is something that is at the very least worth the time to investigate, i dont see how people can justify being so quick to dismiss it.

Thanks for your opinion on this and I fully agree: the features mentioned in the OP are a bit like tiny 'landmarks' in the terrain that automatically attract our attention when sifting through the images. I would be surprised if the science team had dismissed them altogether as being irrelevant. These formations would surely also have had a good story to tell about the geology on Mars, the erosional forces that create such shapes, mineralogical aspects etc. - just like the other rocks of which they acquired an abundance of imagery and data.

But ignoring all of them would be difficult to comprehend & I don't think that's what they did. Anyhow, I'm glad you agree that some of these features do stand out and 'are' noteworthy - even from a geologist's point of view. Thanks a lot for pointing that out in this context!